Hacker News Reader

In the hypothetical world, where press is a natural monopoly, we would be far less likely to allow the press to refuse to publish viewpoints they don't like. Or we would outright nationalize the press and lead to a different sort of problem.

I think this is a case where "free speech absolutism" is not perfectly aligned with "first amendment absolutism", but either is a logically consistent framework.

How could this set precedent for compelled speech of publishers? Facebook, Twitter, and Google aren't even publishers.

If filtering is not publishing then what is it? Do we need a new term for this arrangement?

> Do we need a new term for this arrangement?

The term 'filtering' already exists.

Press is publishing what their authors write, not what their readers write. It's not a social conversation.

Public Television (in countries that have that) would be better example.